Validation of bedside manual versus automated measurements of brain arterial diameters from MR angiography

Abstract

Background and PurposeBrain arterial luminal diameters are reliably measured with automated imaging software. Nonautomated imaging software alternatives such as a Picture Archiving Communication System are more common bedside tools used for manual measurement. This study is aimed at validating manual measurements against automated methods.MethodsWe randomly selected 600 participants from the Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS) and 260 participants from the Atahualpa Project studied with 1.5 Tesla MR angiography. Using the Radiant measuring tool, three independent readers (general practitioner, neurology resident, and vascular neurologist) measured manually the diameter of arterial brain vessels. The same vessels were also measured by LKEB Automated Vessel Analysis (LAVA). We calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of each rater's diameters versus those obtained with LAVA.ResultsThe ICC between diameters obtained by the general practitioner or the neurology resident compared to LAVA was excellent for both internal carotid arteries (ICA) and Basilar Arteries (BA) (ICC > .80 in all comparisons) in NOMAS. In the Atahualpa Project, ICC between diameters obtained by a vascular neurologist and LAVA was good for both ICA and BA (ICC > .60 in all comparisons). The ICCs for the measurements of the remaining arteries were moderate to poor.ConclusionResults suggest that manual measurements of ICA and BA diameters, but not MCA or ACA, are valid and could be used to identify dilated brain arteries at the bedside and for eventual selection of patients with dolichoectasia into clinical trials.